Search

Objective: The aim of this study was to explore local practices and perceptions of effective nurse-resident communication during shifts. Subsequently, effective communication was sought to be reinforced by implementing an initiative for improvement., Design: A mixed-methods study was performed, combining a questionnaire with focus groups. Following qualitative analysis, 3 initiatives for improvement of nurse-resident communication were scrutinized, after which 1 initiative was implemented. Overall contentment with the implementation and effectiveness of communication was reassessed through a questionnaire at 3 months postimplementation., Setting: This study took place between 2022 and 2023 at the Department of Surgery of the Leiden University Medical Center, a tertiary center in the Netherlands., Participants: All surgical nurses (n = 150) and residents (n = 20) were invited to participate, by responding to the questionnaire and take part in the focus groups. A total of 38 nurses (response rate 25.3%) and 12 residents (60%) completed the questionnaire, and 31 nurses and 13 residents participated in the focus groups., Results: The themes "clarity," "mutual respect," "accessibility" and "approach" were critical for effective communication, in which there were interdisciplinary differences in the interpretation and needs regarding "clarity." In response, structured moments for interdisciplinary consultation during shifts were implemented, which were foremostly useful according to nurses (73.9%), compared to residents (40.0%). A majority of the nurses agreed that communication during shifts improved through fixed moments (60.9%)., Conclusion: Differences in the perception of critical elements for efficient nurse-resident communication during shifts can be found, which could possibly be explained by differences in training and culture. Mutual awareness for each other's tasks, responsibilities and background seems vital for the ability to deliver good patient care during shifts. To improve interprofessional practice and overcome concerns of quality of care, attention for local practices is imperative. Practical arrangements, such as fixed moments for peer communication, can strengthen partnership during shift work., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective:  To discuss practical strategies to consider for morbidity and mortality conferences (M&M)., Materials and Methods:  This article reflects on (i) insights that can be drawn from the M&M literature, (ii) practical aspects to consider when organizing M&M, and (iii) possible future directions for development for this long-standing practice for routine reflection., Results:  M&M offers the opportunity to learn from past cases in order to improve the care delivered to future patients, thereby serving both educational and quality improvement purposes. For departments seeking to implement or improve local M&M practice, it is difficult that a golden standard or best practice for M&M is nonexistent. This is partly because comparative research on different formats is hampered by the lack of objective outcome measures to evaluate the effectiveness of M&M. Common practical suggestions include the use of (i) a skillful and active moderator; (ii) structured formats for case presentation and discussion; and (iii) a dedicated committee to guide improvement plans that ensue from the meeting. M&M practice is affected by various sociological factors, for which qualitative research methods seem most suitable, but in the M&M literature these are sparsely used. Moreover, aspects influencing an open and blame-free atmosphere underline how local teams should tailor the format to best fit the local context and culture., Conclusion:  This article presents practice guidance on how to organize and carry out M&M This practice for routine reflection needs to be tailored to the local setting, with attention for various sociological factors that are at play., Competing Interests: None declared., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).)

Objective: Efforts to study morbidity and mortality conferences (M&MC) are hampered by the lack of rigorous instruments to assess the effectiveness of the conferences for the purpose of quality improvement and medical education. This might limit further advancement of the practice. The aim of this scoping review was to determine commonly used effectiveness measures of M&MC in the literature., Method: A scoping review was performed of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies of M&MC, using databases from PubMed, Emcare, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library. Studies were included if an outcome was described after a general evaluation or an intervention to M&MC. Study quality was assessed with the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs., Results: A total of 43 articles were included in the review. The majority used a quantitative (n = 23) or mixed (n = 17) design, with surveys as the most frequent method used for data collection (n = 29). The overall Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs scores were modest (64%). Outcome measures used to evaluate the effectiveness of M&MC were clustered in the following categories: "participant experiences," "characteristics of the meeting," "medical knowledge," "actions for improvement," and "clinical outcomes.", Conclusions: This review found a wide variety of effectiveness measures for M&MC. Rather than using isolated measures, approaches that combine multiple effectiveness measures could offer a more comprehensive assessment of M&MC. Although there was a preference for quantitative metrics, this fails to seize the opportunity of qualitative methods to yield insights into sociological purposes of M&MC, such as building professional identities and safety culture., Competing Interests: The authors disclose no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.